Discussion (135) ¬

There’s bits where the new live-action remake are almost carbon-copies of the old animated movie. Those bits are pretty decent. They faithfully recreate a lot of the scenes. The musical bits are lots of fun. It’s cool to see it all in live-action, with everything looking mostly-realistic. I really enjoyed those parts.

There’s also parts where they try to do things a little differently… And no, I’m not talking about LeFou. He’s almost exactly like his character in the animated version. I’m talking about scenes like the one pictured in this comic – where Belle tells Mrs. Potts that she and the rest of the staff ought to leave The Beast. I’m sure they felt something was necessary since Mrs. Potts is talking about how horrible the guy is, and they didn’t want it to sound too much like an abusive relationship… But, as the strip points out, she’s a teapot. She’s not going anywhere.

There’s other bits like this… Little scenes here and there to add “depth” or backstory or whatever. And they all feel a little forced. A little un-necessary. A little clumsy. And they really mess with the pacing of the rest of the film. It seemed to drag on between musical bits.

The weirdest part of the new live-action remake are the animated characters like Lumiere or Mrs. Potts or Chip or whoever… All the living furniture and dishes and stuff… In the cartoon, it just kind of worked. In this live-action thing it looks weird. Sometimes they’ve got faces just kind of drawn-on, like Mrs. Potts and Chip. Sometimes there’s features on the furniture that kind of look like a face, like Madame de Garderobe. Sometimes they’ve got no face/features at all, like Plumette. And then they go to a lot of trouble to give Lumiere a full, expressive face… Even though nobody would actually make a candelabra like that. It’s just weird. It didn’t fit with the mostly-realistic appearance of the rest of the movie.

having not seen either yet, i think Jungle book would be harder to get wrong if anything, because there’s nothing that hasn’t pretty much been done before in terms of CG/lip syncing with animals?(they’ve pretty much been doing that since TV came out) but it’s harder to go “okay we want realistic objects, with faces stuck on them wherever we can fit them” and have it look plausible to the audience.

Everyone has their own opinion, but as someone who considers the original one of his favorite movies of all time (not just Disney or family films), I *loved* this live-action version, precisely for many of the reasons that were complained about here. I appreciated seeing Belle and Beast as humans (well… a human and a cursed human, I guess) thanks to their backstories, which get a bit more screentime. And WE know that Mrs. Potts is a cursed servant who can’t leave, but Belle doesn’t – it might sound like a silly question, but it’s not exactly a “omg I’m so out of the moment now” sort of thing. It’s definitely long, but I don’t feel like it’s ever plodding. It’s certainly slower by the animated version’s standards, but that helps the relationship feel more nuanced, IMO. It’s not quite so “Oh I’ve been trapped here for a day but I guess I love you now!”

So if you were looking forward to the movie, I’d say still look forward to it. If you were hesitant, be hesitant. But not all of us who’ve seen the movie think it’s a trainwreck by any means. :)

Yeesh. I was hoping the still images of the servants looking like they live comfortably in the Uncanny Valley was just because they were still images. Sometimes motion helps make things work better, apparently here it doesn’t.

I’m gonna just go ahead and disagree. I liked the movie a lot – it wasn’t perfect, but they fixed a lot of the plot holes from the first movie and I thought the new songs added a lot to the story. I think it was very well done.

Mostly what I disliked about the movie was ALL THE FREAKING AUTOTUNE. Basically every solo is so autotuned that the actors sound like robots, especially Emma. Other than that, I think the relationship between Belle and Beast grew a little more realistically than in the cartoon. Not much, but a bit. Also, the build up to the song ‘Gaston’ was great. Le Fou was bribing everybody and I just liked that bit of ‘why should we be singing/dancing? Oh, you’re paying us, ok.’

I kinda figured this would be some kind of shitshow, both for the fact that it’s a remake of a beloved classic, and all the hot-button issues it attempted to press. Neither of those things ever go over without a lot of people losing their shit. I had hoped the movie would at least be good, but I guess that fell flat too?

for 2/3rds the film, he all but carries a sign screaming how he wants to bone Gaston anytime they are on-screen together. Then he sees first-hand just how much of a dink Gaston is (as if he wouldnt have noticed any time before that the douche was an asshat) and goes to…. totally uninterested. No anger, no disgust, none of the feelings you would expect from someone rejecting the love they found to be a villain.

Add to that the fact Watson
A) cant act; as mentioned, she just keeps playing “emma watson”
B) cant sing without auto tune (and it was horribly noticeable)

Mrs Potts was played by the woman that played Nanny McPhee, who tried too hard to copy Angela Landsbury instead of beingherself. Her accent fell wrong and made the signature song of the movie jarring, instead of nostalgic. Its a pity, because if she had sung it herself, as herself, it would have went over better; the accents are close enough, though different, to be a good tribute while still being original.

And then there is the idiocy that the director and writers thought they had to fill in “plot holes” of a frakken cartoon meant for 4-10 year olds. Yes, these idiots thought they could “improve” a classic, and that they needed to “fix” “plot holes” in a film meant for an average watching age of 7; an audience barely old enough to understand “Spongebob Squarepants”.

I didnt want the politics; I wanted a nice escapist fairy tale. This delivered the first and not the second. And in every other metric by which a movie is measured, it scored from mediocre to down right abysmal.

For me there are so many factors that keeps me from liking it though I want to.

One: I’m too cynical & the Cinderella live action jaded me.
Two: like Cinderella they tried to make her more strong smart & independent and caring which Belle already was they open up other plot holes.
Three: the CGI house staff creeped me out.
Four: the singing, not fair to put them against the original but but there was something off about it that kept me from enjoying it, too many sour notes to me and the inability to hold them if they could hit them.
Five: to me Emma Watson always act the same. Instead of Belle I just saw Emma Watson doing her Emma Watson. I don’t hate her but I sorta feel like they could have cast someone else who could sing better.

Won’t tell anyone not to see it but I’m going to go back and admire the animation.

It is disappointing to see how…well, cheap, the movie’s take on the dress is (which is Belle’s iconic gown, after all) considering how faithfully it was recreated for the actresses who play Belle at the parks, or even for a kid’s halloween costume.

The idea behind the new dress was for it to float around her and flow, which it did. It’s still the same basic principle, just a bit easier to move in and allows the dress to move naturally. Belle’s dress in the animation would have been very bulky in the skirts. I don’t mind the changes to ‘the dress’

I actually don’t think the tidbit with the young prince at the Deathbed was as awkward as it initially looked. On the second viewing I was like. “Oh, okay, I get it now, this song is just going through all the cursed characters starting with the beast and the pain they’re going through and their longing for better days.” The young prince’s part is so short you almost don’t realize how much more there is to the song. It wasn’t exactly necessary since they had already established what had happened to his mother, but I get their reasoning for it a bit better now.

emma watson is just the same person in almost every movie she stars in. we all had such high hopes for her because she was such a convincing Hermione, but it turns out she is justt that type of person. and now she’s typecasted herself.

i thought she did pretty well in the Bling Ring. i wish she would diversify a little.

Belle is good at keeping her cool; can act distant, but never rude; reads for the pleasure of reading (and seems most interested in story books); has high self-esteem and, as a rolemodel-type heroin in a 90 minute movie, is a well-rounded character at best.
Hermione is prone to moodiness; can be uptight and rude; reads for pleasure AND research (and seems interested in academic books quite exclusively); has some self-esteem issues and is, as one of the main heroes of a long-running franchise, overall deeply developed character.

Much of the dress-ruining is, I fear, due to the actress. Ms. Watson wished to “empower” Belle, and so refused to wear a corset. The corset is more than a shaping garment: it also supports the body and other layers. With more grand and elaborate dresses comes the need for more elaborate undergarments. One can assume that if Ms. Watson refused the corset she would likewise refuse petticoats and other supports.

Well said. The subject of the corset feels like a double-edged sword: on the one hand, I appreciate that she wanted more for the character than just the dress, and her looks; on the other hand, as a corset wearer myself, I wear it because it gives me personal pleasure, and feel it takes nothing away from my feminist character. It’s curious that many assume people wear makeup or certain clothing for the male/female gaze, and not out of one’s own preferences.

In her defense, Ms Watson went on to show a bit more initiative and ability in defending herself against the wolves than Belle in the animated version. It’s one of several examples of how she made the character considerably MORE likable than the “original” version from the animated film.

(A lot of the other characters were made more likable and interesting as well… including Gaston. He’s actually far less of a one-dimensional caricature in this rendition, and the townsfolk are actually somewhat justified in adoring him. Which they do… until one scene where he loses their trust and admiration, until he intimidates Lefou into lying on his behalf in order to support his alibi)

Honestly, I felt like they did a good job of addressing the whole stolkholme syndrome thing. He tries to be romantic and is an asshole, she takes the first opportunity to ditch the asshole, and only sticks around because he almost dies saving her life from a problem he didn’t cause. She feels she owes him enough to get him to saftey, and only after he has taken a bullet for her does she even start to consider he might not be a monster. She is in a position of power at that point and could leave at any point in the daylight, so it’s more on an equal footing.

But eh- that’s just my interpretation and you are welcome to disagree.

In the animated version, yes. I also roll my eyes when people talk about Stockholme Syndrome in relation to the animated Beauty and the Beast. It’s not like she rolled over and took any of his shit like a door mat. When he demanded she join him for dinner, she told him to fuck off. When he lost his shit over her being in the West Wing, she up and fucking left without looking back. She was attacked by wolves- yes, but enter the Beast to be the one to get mauled. When he yells at her/blames her for his wounds she stands her ground and gives everything he dishes out back at him. Also, she calls him out for losing his temper. She set boundaries and she can leave at any time. The Disney animation has its problems- it’s Disney! But pretty sure the Stockholm Syndrome isn’t one of them. People seeing Stockholm Syndrome in Beauty and the Beast are often the same people that see/hear rape in the original “Baby it’s Cold Outside” song. Just saying….

That’s correct. She tries to flee after he blows up at her for entering the blocked off wing, she gets attacked by wolves, and Beast saves her ass. That’s the point of the original film in which she begins to warm up to him.

In the animated version, she also treats him for his wounds, which winds up at least saving him from infection if not death. They didn’t exactly have an assortment of skillful furniture-shaped medics in the castle, and the wolves did a number on him.

Not remotely a new perspective, but the addition of a little more relationship building scenes really helped. That’s one of the few very good changes they made here; the original had the wound treatment and then jumped straight to Something There, which I think was meant as a montage to show that over time they’d started to get to know each other and care for each other. Here we actually get to see it happening.

honestly in the origonal there wasnt much stalkhome syndrome in it if you actually paid attention… Belle wasnt the one that changed for the captor beast, beast was the one that tried hard to change for Belle. He was the one trying to be a better person, not her trying to warm up to a captor.

I make a face everytime someone mentions Stockholm syndrome and Beauty and the Beast in the same sentence.
There are numerous people who make videos or write about it on a lot of different networks, how it’s not Stockholm Syndrome.

Although that is towards the classic animated one. Since I haven’t seen the remake, they could have changed it for all I know.

The one thing I did like about that scene, that was genuinely different, was Beast recognising her reading Shakespeare while recovering and having a bonding moment over his works. The rest of “Something there” is pretty much the same as the animated film. Only Live Action is like “man the animated film was too subtle with character development so lets wack em over the head with it” – so now Beast is all insightful and making jokes while Neo-Belle is all like “omg lol ur actually funny & smart I like u”

Plus technically the animated film has the bonding over storytime bit as well…if you watch the version with “Human Again” spliced in.

I also found the pacing off, and I think it was because the dialogue happened rather fast, there were hardly any ‘thinking’ breaks, especially in situations you would expect them to be. As Belle asks the Beast to let her father go, he says something and she immediately replies. I know it’s learned by heart text lines, but they overall delivered them too fast, which kinda impacted how I perceived the pacing. But overall the pacing was probably rather fast in itself too (because of the new/longer scenes with Gaston, maybe?)

I personally didn’t like the movie as much. There were scenes I really enjoyed and laughed at, others felt out of place, although from a logical point of view they made sense, I just didn’t like them (e.g. Beast’s song – he was made into the ‘damsel’ pining away in a tower, which fits Belle taking on the active role in the story, but I just didn’t enjoy that part, it was too much).
But for me, there was too much singing – I simply didn’t expect it to include all the musical numbers, when sometimes dialogue or silence could have been sufficient and then a slight hint towards the music in the background (e.g. Belle and Beast singing “Something there”).

I enjoyed the movie, but yes, there were some hiccups, and the pacing was messed up from trying to ram practically everything from the original while still adding to it. Some of it wasn’t necessary to add and didn’t strengthen their relationship. Some differences like the Beast’s education level was a different choice, but I see why they did it. In the original the Beast is not good at reading, and Belle reading to him, taking him away from his sorry state and immersing him in the world of books offers him an escape from his situation if only temporarily, allowing him freedom within his mind. It was an excellent way for them to bond, allowing her to share something she loves.

I don’t think it’s bad that they changed this. It does make sense that a prince would be a learned individual, and since they’re confirming in this version he was in fact, an adult, there’s no reason for that to be there anymore. He has a believably cynical view of romantic stories while still having a weakness for Arthurian legend at least. What makes me like this change is that it makes Beast more on a level playing field with Belle, he’s not just being inspired by her sharing this part of herself. He is, instead of being like everyone else in the village who thinks reading is beneath them, smart enough to be able to discuss her books and have enough interest and knowledge to be an informed and engaging participant. For Belle I can see that as a huge drawing factor. Her Mother’s backstory and having them both share in that particular pain (Though I believe worse for beast since he actually knew his mother enough to remember her and miss her) I didn’t feel like it was a strong or good connecting point for them. The books were better, and the romance is rushed as it was in the original. No more than a couple weeks have gone by at best. Maybe not much more than one given some clues given in the story and some of the dialogue. There’s a few interesting changes though they’re not very well hidden as they were easy to pick up upon concerning the Enchantress.

I liked some of the concepts, but I felt they had so much pressure to be true to the original that things that could have been scrapped to give the movie more room to be itself Disney just flat out didn’t dare. Beauty and the Beast is one of their most beloved classics and the pressure to do it justice was immense. Let’s face it, nothing they could have done would have gotten past our rose colored glasses enough to think this film would be better than the original, addressing plot holes or not. We don’t love the original less for them. Basically whether you’re going to like it or not is determined heavily by your expectations of it. There’s some good, there’s some bad, there’s so much of the original reproduced that the new parts just feel like they had to be padded in wherever they thought they could get away with it without stepping on too many toes. I feel in time after subsequent viewings the movie itself will grow on me more, not that I thought it was bad, but it did feel a little cluttered.

I do have to say that one additional song in particular…I absolutely loved. I am hooked on listening to Evermore. I love that song.

I agree on the trainwreck thing. It felt like watching a movie that was trying to be a realistic, thought-inducing spin on a classic, while also being a fucking musical. As a result it fell short on both counts. The acting was bland. The lines were flat. The scenes they added in an attempt to develop Belle were glossed over too quickly. The musical numbers were meh. A lot of stuff that I could excuse in the Disney movie (like Belle going up a hill for no reason other than to sing to the wind) felt unrealistic for a live-action adaptation (which imo is why they should have gone full musical instead of keeping it lowkey). All in all I thought it was ok but pretty meh.

I’ll say, unashamedly, that I think this movie blew the original away. The characters felt more well-rounded to me, Maurice was competent, Gaston was a better villain, Le Fou had a turning point, and in general the background characters were real with real relationships. (Like the wardrobe being the maestro’s wife, etc.). I liked Agatha as a new character, and a few tweaks they made to fit the fairy tale, such as Maurice stealing a rose. Gaston felt more like a real villain, with his obsession turning him unhinged and eventually him deciding to kill Maurice and only throwing him in the asylum when he fails. He felt like an actual conniving person. In general, the original was good, this to me is a masterpiece. I guess it’s polarizing — either love it or hate it?

As for plot holes, the fairy tale itself has plot holes. It’s kind of inherent in fairy tales that you just say “well okay it works that way” and the original had the same sort of plot holes. Actually, they covered a few up — like explaining why nobody knows about this castle or why Belle gives any fucks about Beast (they’re both nerds omg XD ) or what actually happens when the last petal falls. I don’t think it was made clear that the objects become less animate as time goes on.

” I don’t think it was made clear that the objects become less animate as time goes on.”

Wow. I mean I’d heard that they had been considering putting that in as a plot line in the original movie, but scrapped it. They included it in this one? That’s dark.

And yet more proof that the enchantress was the real villain, I mean holy shit lady. She shows up on a dark and stormy night and asks a prince to by a rose, he’s a bit brusque, in return she fucks him and everyone he knows up in a way that she thought was likely to be both cruel and unusual and permanent. She was either a personification of fate or Malificent’s kid sister.

Yeah, in this movie they put in that every time a petal falls, they feel less human and more like their objects. The castle also degrades in general. There is a short scene when the first petal falls in the movie where you see the objects talking to each other about how bad it is that they’re feeling these effects slowly and what’s happening to them.

There is one theory on the harshness of the whole tale I’ve heard that the reason it’s such a huge deal is because in part it’s a morality tale on being kind to strangers etc — that back in the time the original fairy tale was created, it was considered heinous to turn anyone away from your door who wasn’t an active threat. By withholding his great wealth from someone who needed help and sought out his doorstep, the Prince was committing a pretty grievous sin.

Also, fairy tales were very much scare-’em-straight tales back in the day. Disney cute-ified many of them, but they were often gruesome and very dark. Cinderella is a great example of that, with the stepsisters cutting off parts of their feet to fit the shoe and so on.

Lots of Disney movies leave out disturbing things from the original Tales. Like with Pocahontas. I won’t go onto too much detail but lets just say we she like 12 or 13 and John Smith was more than twice her age.

If I recall correctly, the tail of the little mermaid revolved around the fact mermaids aren’t people and don’t have souls, whole lot of religious overtones as she tries for a chance at that Human Life (TM), blabla can’t go to heaven. I’m definitely glossing over a lot, but point is, Disney did too.

“Disney cute-ified many of them, but they were often gruesome and very dark. Cinderella is a great example of that, with the stepsisters cutting off parts of their feet to fit the shoe and so on.”

They only cut parts of their feet off in the Grimms’ version. Disney used the Perrault version (which is older than the Grimm’s by over 100 years) in which the sisters not only do NOT cut off parts of their feet, but in the end they apologize to Cinderella and beg her forgiveness. She grants it and even matches them up with high-ranking noblemen while letting them live in the palace. If anything, Disney made their Cinderella DARKER than the Perrault original- her stepfamily does not get redemption, one of her slippers is broken, her mother’s dress that the mice spruced up for her is destroyed, her dad is dead instead of just cowed by his new overbearing wife, both of the prince’s parents are still alive and present, and Cinderella is actually allowed to try on the slipper instead of getting locked in her room at the end.

The original Beauty and the Beast, similarly, wasn’t much darker (if at all) than the Disney animated version either. There’s no lynch mob, the prince doesn’t leave an old woman to die in the cold, Beauty’s father was never really in any danger over the rose, and there’s no Gaston type villain. The darkest things in the original were a baby dying off-screen in a flashback, several characters being presumed dead (but actually not, happy endings abound), Beast trying to starve himself when he believes Beauty is never coming back, and the fact that the Beast’s curse is the result of his mother basically screwing him over by insulting the decrepit fairy that wants to marry the 15 year old prince after having raised him from early childhood.

Don’t get me wrong, fairy tales can and often are dark, but the degree really depends on the source, location, and time period with the Grimms and Andersen, who show up pretty late in the game so to speak, as probably the worst offenders. I think Disney gets a lot of flack for lightening up the stories, but I don’t think that’s quite true. In a lot of ways, they shift the darkness (Disney is notorious for dead parents after all). For example- Tangled: in the Disney version, Rapunzel is not impregnated out of wedlock(!) and abandoned to give birth in the wilderness, Mother Gothel is a horrible, abusive, narcissistic person that made Tangled unwatchable for quite a few people because of how realistic she was and how she reminded victims of such parents of their trauma, and instead of the Prince being blinded, in the Disney version he is pretty much KILLED (although he gets better). In Mulan, a little girl and her entire village are murdered (off-screen). A lot of things are also just cut for time and better pacing (Sleeping Beauty, for example, does not end with her waking up and Snow White is tricked by the Queen THREE TIMES).

I think it’s not so much that Disney tries to soften or sanitize things, but more that they try to cater to their audience- bad things happen during the course of the story, but “justice” is usually served, things are changed to be palatable for the modern audience’s sensibilities, and the endings are always happy.

The Fair Folk had a lot in common with the old djinnis from Middle Eastern folklore, in that they would abuse exact wording and little loopholes in deals to make sure that the person got the worst possible outcome without technically breaking their word. The Fae of the Unseelie Court (the one that ruled over the realm of winter) were generally presented as being cruel and malicious, usually only interacting with humans when they wanted to screw them over for their own entertainment. The original film works WAY better if you assume the Enchantress was an Unseelie faerie having a few cheap laughs at the expense of a spoiled young man promoted to power too early in life just because she could, and his servants were just part of the deal and didn’t even factor in as people to her because they were too far below her level.

In this version the Enchantress is actually a lot less… nasty, than in the original. She doesn’t just throw out a horrible curse and wander off with her nose in the air. She sticks around for the next fifteen years, watching over the situation, saving Maurice’s life, and gently steering things… it’s made increasingly obvious over the course of the film that she WANTS them to lift their curse. She’s rooting for the Prince and Belle. And to top it off, the ending isn’t just a happy ending for the primary couple – the Prince (who was initially stated as having heavily taxed the townsfolk to pay for his extravagant parties) is entertaining all the villagers, and it’s implied that he’s going to invest in the village and enrich their lives.

In other words, the Enchantress behaves a lot like the Lancre witches of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld books. Granny Weatherwax and Nanny Ogg would have approved.

That’s still kind of evil, though. Like, even if she stayed to watch after him, she still turned him into a hideous monster, and even if you’re willing to argue that she at least had some reason for that, his servants certainly didn’t deserve the liter and figurative dehumanization.

It’s basically like if your boss brushed off a Girl Scout selling cookies, and in response, the Girl Scouts rolled into your place of work and shot your boss, you and all your coworkers. Your boss didn’t deserve that, and you super didn’t deserve it!

Honestly, I quite enjoyed it. Yes, there are some plot holes and areas where things come off as stilted, but it isn’t really much worse than the original. The CGI household items were the most off-putting part to me, but I really enjoyed a lot of the little add-ons they included. The massive bookshop in a town that thinks reading is odd being swapped with a small book collection in the local church, Maurice being a watchmaker/artist rather than crackpot inventor who could actually make a living doing what he does, LaFoe handing off coins to get people to join into the Gaston song. And, of course, Evermore being an awesome addition to the music.

Some of them can at least offer something new to the old stories. Maleficent kicked them off by rewritting and providing a new focus and viewpoint for the story. I can’t speak to all of them, but I think this one offered something new. Evermore, most clearly, seems to be pretty well regarded as a good addition. LeFou being fleshed out, new take on the blossoming romance, as well as some small adjustments to scenes and characters were all things I think this movie did well.

I think it had missteps, and I hated the Enchantress so much more in this one, as well as some complaints about the beginning of the film, but I’m glad this retread exists at least.

Disney fell into the “all Europeans are British” trap. The stuff upper lip acting of the British is just way out of place in a French fairly tale. Watson was just a bad pick for the role because she doesn’t bring the pomp and energy it required.

Funny story, my friends and I were going to see Beauty and the Beast. One of my friends who is involved in local theater basically has to see it since the experience will eventually come up in his other social circles.

We got to the theatre and all showings for the movie for the next hour (three or four showings total) were packed, leaving only scattered or uncomfortably close seating to the screen.

from the promotional material and seeing Luke Evans’s other movies, I can only assume Gaston contracted Nomura Syndrome… anyone whose chest measurment in inches starts with anything less than a 5 has no business playing a man “roughly the size of a barge”

Honestly, I felt like all of it was going to be pretty crappy in the first place… Because the effects looked horrible.

Best part is, I hadn’t even HEARD of it then network TV had the original movie on, and I happily watched it with my family on a visit.

Then they had the preview.

Everything that was super expressive and colorful and such darn GOOD ANIMATION was replaced by wooden “realistic” crud. Mrs. Potts’s face was just the side of a china teapot. Not all of them are as bad as her… but none of them are as good as the animation.

Hearing that everything ELSE was bad too… well I’m not really all that surprised.

It IS based on a Disney children’s film, and it got a general 7.9/10 average sooooo… -._-.
Besides, Brave Little Toaster managed to go through a ****ing forest, I think they could all manage with teamwork XD

In her defense she has no clue how the curse works. Maybe if they abandoned him they would turn back to people isn’t that far out there thinking… I mean it’s magic not growing turnips.

I really liked how well they nailed France, the small town and small minded people. I liked how belle admits she was being arrogant even if it was in sing song and I loved the Gaston he nailed his performance. They also filled in a lot of plot holes like why the town was oblivious to the castle.

I don’t understand the Hermionie hate, Belle was always strong willed in a time when women (especially common women) had no future other than marriage to their chores and husbands(and commoner men had it only marginally better). Maybe because Emma didn’t play her as soft and polite as the animated character? Perhaps it’s because she is to big in your memory to be anything other than Hermionie? I thought the character was fantastic either way.

I’m both dreading and looking forward to this movie…but that last panel (and Belle’s FACE, omg) seriously cracked me up. Now I’ll probably end up laughing hysterically in the movie theater when this scene crops up, and I’ll be mobbed by rabid fans. Oh Coela, you have doomed me, and I can’t even be mad about it. XD

As much as I hate to say it–and I really do hate to say it–the moment I heard one of those involved say that they “wanted to give Belle more agency” I knew it would be trash. I like the sentiment, really, but whenever someone hints at sort of pseudo-feminist thinking going into the story it tends to mean that they’re focused too much on that. It’s like the new Ghostbusters. I didn’t really mind the idea of them all being women–I even kind of liked the idea–but I knew that BECAUSE they were all women and that this was a conscious choice that the movie would be terrible. You can always see this coming if you know what to look for.

Has no one noticed that pretty much ALL actors nowadays just play themselves? Not really that jarring. If a movie JARS you or ‘ruins your childhood’ you need better priorities. The faces are just like the cartoon. Sometimes they were part of the actual item they were & sometimes they were painted on, like Miss Potts. I just, get so annoyed that people get so worked up over a god damn movie.
Just sit down and enjoy the damn thing without comparing it to another.
And don’t insult people who do enjoy it. And don’t try to ruin it for others. I have depression & love to just lose myself in these movies. They take me away from reality & I just have fun. That’s what movies are about. People need to just, stop taking them so seriously I think. Of course have good messages, but don’t think of them literally. I mean look at Fast 7. You think that shit is meant to be real?
Just loose yourself for a couple of hours & stop thinking about critiquing it & just shut up & enjoy.

I’m not sure I will watch the remake. Definitely not at cinema. It’s more if I find it cheap when it comes out on DVD then maybe. So many things I have seen in trailers and even just some comments here makes me very reluctant.
Just looked up the dress…Urgh. Why is it always the poor corset who gets beaten and blamed.

But nevermind that. Actually the thing that made me the most reluctant may sound a bit weird to some. But I thought The Beast didn’t look that beast-like. He’s almost “dateable” as you across the Atlantic would say.
In the classic his face isn’t human at all. In the remake it’s kinda handsome-ish. It just have fur on it.
*Shrugs*

I was thinking the other day if they had made Gaston gay then turned the last 30-40 minutes into an ending where Beast and Gaston transcended their outward issues to fall deeply in love, that would have been a movie that I would have been curious to see (and would have been worth so much of the “controversy”).

As it is, the only thing that is vaguely interesting is the notion of Emma Watson playing a woman who falls in love through Stockholm Syndrome.﻿

Honestly my only gripe was during the “I want to be out in the great wide somewhere” segment near the beginning where Belle is on top of the hill.

In the animated movie Belle is twirling and swinging her arms, expressing and gesturing to every cloud and tree she sees.

In the live action movie, Emma is perfectly still, staring back at the village, her arms glued to her side and the most pitiful sway back and fourth i’ve ever seen. Looked reaaaally awkward and clunky tbh.

I enjoyed the movie overall. If you have scrolled this far down in the comments section while reading people’s opinions of the movie, I suggest you see it for yourself because I saw more than a few people who made judgments without having seen it. It was better than I expected.